Allan Rock

[Quebec, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court reference is a response to issues raised by the Government of Quebec. It was Mr. Bouchard and his minister of justice who said that the courts have no role to play. When they raised that issue in the Bertrand litigation we went to that courtroom, persuaded the hon. Mr. Justice Pidgeon that, indeed, the courts do have a role to play. He said as much in his judgment of August 30. After that issue was determined, Mr. Bouchard and his minister of justice left the courtroom and abandoned the process.

We have now taken the very issues he has raised and put them before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what this reference is about.

In a more direct response to the hon. member's question, the issue of contingency legislation was raised yesterday by his colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West. As I said then, a number of suggestions have been made in the public discussion about how we might approach this issue. They are all useful suggestions. That public discussion should continue. It is very valuable and we encourage it.

I am sure that through that discussion in which all Canadians are participating a number of valuable suggestions will arise and they shall all be considered.

[Quebec, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have said time and again, even in the speech from the throne, that our commitment is quite clear. It is that if a third referendum is to be held in Quebec we will ensure that the choice is very clear: remaining in Canada or separating. There is no middle ground and no suggestion of partenariat or some association which is in someone's imagination. That is the first item.

Second, the consequences would be clear. Those voting in Quebec would know that they are choosing between Canada and something very different, which is separation.

Third, the process would be fair. Canadians would have a right to express themselves in seeking to persuade the population of Quebec to remain.

Fourth, no matter what the decision, Canadians everywhere would have a say in the future. This would mean that unilateral action, no matter what the result of the referendum, is illegal and unacceptable and following a referendum in Quebec when the population of Quebec expresses its view, all Canadians must then participate in determining where we go from there.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec insists on a third referendum after twice the population of Quebec voted for a united Canada, the first issue will be to determine the will and wish of Quebecers. We have said time and again that we are confident they will choose a united Canada.

The hon. member pretends that in such an event the population of Quebec would choose a different course. We are saying that in any such unlikely eventuality, all Canadians have a stake in what would then happen, which is the settlement of the issues that would be outstanding on separation, not partnership. All Canadians must have a voice in determining those issues.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we intend to act on the commitment we made in February in the speech from the throne, that if there was a third referendum in Quebec, there would be a clear question, full discussion of all the consequences, a fair and equitable process and an opportunity for all Canadians to have some say on the future of their country.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Yes, it is true. It is obvious that we do not intend to hold someone within Canada by force, against their will. We are, however, confident that decision will not be taken.

But the reason for our referral to the Supreme Court this week is that action after such a vote cannot be unilateral. We need answers to the difficult questions which arise under such circumstances. That is to say, all Canadians are involved in this process, a process which must respect the rule of law. That is the purpose of our action this week.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have addressed the question, we have made a speech.

But the speech mentioned the word "democracy", a pertinent word here, because of course we must respect the decision of the population of Quebec on the question of separation. Of course, if a decisive majority voices its opinion on a clear question after a legal process, and decides to leave Canada, to separate, that decision must be respected. That is true.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it suits the purpose of the hon. member to confuse one issue with another. What he fails to address is that the one rule that binds us all in this country is the rule of law.

What is at issue here is whether that rule of law is to govern all that we do, including resolving the great national question of separation.

We made clear yesterday that we must respect a decisive majority on a clear question on that issue as expressed by the population of Quebec. The question will be separation or not, nothing in between, not partnership or any such thing. Separation or not is the clear and honest question that must be asked.

We have every confidence that when that question is asked, the population of Quebec will vote, as it has done on two earlier occasions, for a united Canada.

The issue we confront in the case that we have now referred to the Supreme Court of Canada is this. My hon. friend and the government of the province of Quebec pretend that if they get the result they want the very next day they can walk away unilaterally from the nation that is Canada. That is not so.

They would have to follow negotiations to resolve the tough issues involved in separation, not partnership. Those negotiations have to be in accordance with an orderly process consistent with the rule of law.

That is our point in taking his questions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker, and might I add a note of reality to this?

It was Mr. Bouchard himself who sent his Minister of Justice into a Montreal court room, a few months ago, in the spring of this year, in order to convince it to close the Bertrand case because, under the Constitution, the courts have nothing to do with sovereignty. He was not successful. We responded to that in court and were successful in convincing the judge to continue because the court does indeed have a role to play by deciding these matters of law.

After that, the Quebec Minister of Justice left the case, yet the basic questions remain, those raised by Mr. Bouchard and his Minister of Justice themselves.

We have raised those fundamental questions in the highest court of the land, and Mr. Bouchard and the Government of Quebec have refused to participate. In my opinion, the only conclusion we can reach is that Mr. Bouchard and the Government of Quebec are well aware that what we maintain is true: unilateral action is illegal.

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that it was the hon. member from the Reform Party who raised the cross-Canada referendum; it was not something which I mentioned.

The hon. member opposite likes to pretend that anyone who relies on the rule of law is speaking against the democratic expression by the population of Quebec of its will. That is simply not so. The people of Quebec have every right to express themselves democratically in a consultative referendum.

Where my hon. friend goes wrong and where the attorney general of Quebec goes wrong is to say that from that result they can proceed unilaterally to walk away from the contract, just leave the table. That is the crux of the issue.

Let us not confuse the issue. We respect the right of the population of Quebec to express itself democratically, but we must insist that there be no unilateral action, that we keep in mind that this issue affects the interests of all Canadians and it will only be resolved in accordance with principles that provide for its orderly disposition.

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are focusing now on the fundamental legal issues raised by the attorney general of Quebec.

The questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada today must be answered because the attorney general of Quebec has taken a position that is unacceptable under Canadian law. We intend to take this opportunity to deal with this very important matter. We will start with these questions and later, during the months to come, we will meet our other commitments.